David Hockney

Peter Oborne in The Daily Telegraph says that Hockney is a conservative painter. He quotes Michael Oakeshott: "To be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss." He follows it with: "Hockney's landscapes on public display from this Saturday are on one level a meditation on this Oakeshottian theme."
But are they any good?
Oborne draws attention to the work of Damien Hirst and that Tony Blair purchased two of his paintings (I didn 't know he did any paintings) which seems to indicate his non-Oakeshottian qualities.
In short, Hockney paints the familar landscapes of his native Yorkshire while Hirst and his ilk produce works that are new, untried previously, full of New Labour spice and life.
But is Hockney any good?
Most people, except the few art critics who like to argue a case rather than enjoy, do not have much time for Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin; they think of them as artistic frauds. Most people like David Hockney's work - the present exhibition at The Royal Academy is already fully booked.
But is he any good?
His paintings are quite pleasant. I'm afraid "chocolate box pictures" come to mind. While they are nice to look at I wonder if there is any depth in them. Quite frankly, I don't think, like Oborne, that conservative values are what one thinks of when viewing them; more "traditional landscapes" come to mind.